Defendant’s Motion to Compel Settlement Agreements Granted

Court: United States District Court for the District of Kansas

In this action, plaintiff Dennis Dickenson filed suit after being diagnosed with mesothelioma and subsequently settled with two companies. Defendant Henkel moved to compel any, and all, settlement agreements and communications relating to those settlements. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing he should not be required to turn over the settlement agreements and communications as such information is not discoverable.

Ultimately, the court granted a portion of Henkel’s motion seeking settlement agreements. Henkel argued the …

Continue Reading

Valve Defendants Obtain Summary Judgment Due to Lack of Causation Evidence

Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California

In this action, the plaintiffs alleged that the decedent, John Carpenter, contracted and died from mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos, which occurred in part during his service in the Navy. Before the court are two motions: defendant Nibco Inc.’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication (the “Nibco Motion”); and defendant Asco Valve Inc.’s (“Asco”) motion for summary judgment (the “Asco Motion”).

Four of the decedent’s coworkers testified about the …

Continue Reading
person testifying

Valve Defendants Obtain Summary Judgment on Causation

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

In this asbestos action, decedent John Carpenter worked as a marine machinist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard from 1973 until 1984, when he became a mechanical engineering technician. Four of his co-workers testified as to his activities while at the shipyard, as Carpenter passed before he could be deposed. Two valve defendants, Nibco and Asco, moved for summary judgment, which the plaintiffs opposed.

With regard to the exposure evidence in this case, two co-workers testified …

Continue Reading

Retail Distributer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Product-Identification Grounds Denied

Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, November 9, 2022

In this asbestos matter, the plaintiffs alleged that the decedent, Gail Chandler, developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, Parts Warehouse, a retail distributer, sold asbestos-containing parts to the decedent and/or the decedent’s employer, and that these parts caused the decedent to be exposed to asbestos. The plaintiffs further argued that Parts Warehouse also had liability for parts obtained through its alternative entity; Lamus-Lundlee Co. Parts …

Continue Reading
Judge chamber with gavel

Brake Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss on Personal Jurisdiction Grounds Denied

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, October 6, 2022

In this asbestos action, Plaintiff George Sweikart alleged that his mesothelioma resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, including brakes and clutches from defendant Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. (“Akebono”). Akebono, a Japanese company, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, alleging that no personal jurisdiction exists over it in California.  

A non-resident defendant is subject to a state’s general jurisdiction if its contacts “are so continuous and systematic, as to render …

Continue Reading
Business and lawyers discussing contract papers with brass scale on desk

Automotive Defendant Obtains Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction

United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, July 21, 2022

In this asbestos action, defendant Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal Inc. as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to respond to Honeywell’s motion.

A district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant “who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). An Illinois district …

Continue Reading

Brake Supplier Permitted to Present Evidence of Fault Against Non-Parties for Apportionment Considerations

United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, July 12, 2022

In this asbestos action, the plaintiff Jack Papineau sued various manufacturers alleging that these manufacturers produced asbestos-containing products, which caused plaintiff’s mesothelioma. One of the defendants, Brake Supply, sought indemnification or apportionment from an outside party, Frans-Le South America (“Fras-Le”), alleging that Frans-Le sold Brake Supply asbestos-containing brakes. The court dismissed Brake Supply’s indemnification claims against Frans-Le for a lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the court left the question of …

Continue Reading

Defendants Successful on Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert’s Specific Causation Opinion 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, July 11, 2022

Plaintiff, Frank Shelton, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit alleging his exposure to asbestos from various defendants’ products while he served in the Navy from approximately the mid-1960s to the early 1970s caused him to contract mesothelioma. During his service, plaintiff worked as a machinist mate while stationed aboard the USS Constellation, USS Repose, and USS Haleakala, where he regularly and routinely performed maintenance and repairs to various equipment in the …

Continue Reading

Alameda County Awaits Key Decision Regarding The Use of Genetic Testing in Asbestos Cases

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee set a hearing on nationally recognized plaintiff’s firm Maune Raichle French Hartley & Mudd. LLC’s motion for protective order in a pending asbestos case in which the defendants’ experts wanted to perform genetic testing. The case is John Lohmann and Suzanne Lohmann v. Aaon, Inc., et al. Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG21098862. In this case, the plaintiffs filed their action in May 2021 in Alameda County against several defendants alleging that Mr. Lohmann contracted mesothelioma …

Continue Reading
Close up of Male lawyer or judge hand's striking the gavel on sounding block, working with Law books, report the case on table in modern office, Law and justice concept

Product Manufacturer and Supplier’s Motion to Dismiss Granted for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, February 18, 2022

In this asbestos action, defendant Ametek, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint by plaintiffs Maria and Carmelo Patti. The plaintiffs alleged that Mrs. Patti was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured and supplied by Ametek to her employer, Grieco Brothers, which caused her to develop mesothelioma.

The court undertook a two-part inquiry as is required under Connecticut law when a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, …

Continue Reading